پیوندهای مفید
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 32 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 554 |
| تعداد مقالات | 5,380 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 8,161,738 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 6,064,778 |
Concurrent Versus Cumulative Group Dynamic Assessment: Effects on Iranian EFL Learners' Interlanguage Pragmatic Competence from a Microgenetic Perspective | ||
| Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching | ||
| دوره 4، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 7، 2026، صفحه 1-26 اصل مقاله (671.69 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Original Article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22080/iselt.2026.30419.1146 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Zeinab Azadbakht؛ Hooshang Yazdani* ؛ Elham Farahani | ||
| Arak University, Arak, Iran. | ||
| تاریخ دریافت: 10 آبان 1404، تاریخ بازنگری: 16 بهمن 1404، تاریخ پذیرش: 17 بهمن 1404 | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Although dynamic assessment (DA) has shown promise in fostering interlanguage pragmatic (ILP) competence, empirical comparisons of concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessment (G-DA) remain limited, particularly regarding speech act production across proficiency levels using microgenetic analysis. This explanatory sequential mixed-methods study addresses these gaps by investigating the efficacy of concurrent and cumulative G-DA in enhancing the ILP competence of Iranian English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) learners at pre-intermediate, intermediate, and upper-intermediate levels, focusing on requests, refusals, and compliment responses. To this end, 90 Iranian EFL learners were randomly assigned to nine groups (10 learners each): three concurrent G-DA groups (n = 30), three cumulative G-DA groups (n = 30), and three control (non-GDA) groups (n = 30), with each condition including learners from all three proficiency levels. MANOVA, one-way ANOVA, and Scheffé post-hoc tests revealed significant improvements in both G-DA groups compared to the non-GDA groups (p < 0.05). Concurrent G-DA yielded superior outcomes, particularly among pre-intermediate learners (η² = 0.48-0.58), followed by intermediate learners; gains were smaller at upper-intermediate levels, suggesting a ceiling effect. Microgenetic analyses of audio-recorded collaborative dialogues further illustrated how dialogic mediation in concurrent G-DA promoted greater pragmatic awareness and self-regulation, whereas cumulative G-DA provided more structured support suited to lower-proficiency learners. The findings highlight the importance of tailoring mediation to proficiency levels to optimize pragmatic development and offer practical implications for EFL instruction. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| Competence؛ Concurrent G-DA؛ Cumulative G-DA؛ Dynamic Assessment؛ Group؛ Interlanguage؛ Pragmatic؛ Speech Acts؛ Sociocultural Theory | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1994.tb02064.x
Amarien, N (1997). Interlanguage pragmatics: A study of the refusal strategies of Indonesian speakers speaking English. TEFLIN Journal, 8(1), 1-144.
Azizi, Z., & Namaziandost, E. (2023). Implementing peer-dynamic assessment to cultivate Iranian EFL learners’ interlanguage pragmatic competence: A mixed-methods approach. International Journal of Language Testing, 13(1), 18-43. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijlt.2022.345372.1171
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2001). Evaluating the empirical evidence: Grounds for instruction in pragmatics? In Pragmatics in language teaching (pp. 13-32). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524797.005
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2013). Developing L2 pragmatics. Language Learning, 63(1), 68-86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00738.x
Behnam, B., & Amizadeh, N. (2011). A comparative study of the compliments and compliment responses between English and Persian TV interviews. 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, 17(1), 65-78.
Davin, K. J. (2011). Group dynamic assessment in an early foreign language learning program: Tracking movement through the zone of proximal development [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Davin, K. J., & Donato, R. (2013). Student collaboration and teacher-directed classroom dynamic assessment: A complementary pairing. Foreign Language Annals, 46(1), 5-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12012
De Costa, P. I. (2007). Review of Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Applied Linguistics, 28(3), 477-480. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm027
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Ablex Publishing.
Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis (2nd ed.). Polity.
Jalilifar, A. (2009). Request strategies: Cross-sectional study of Iranian EFL learners and Australian native speakers. English Language Teaching, 2(1), 46-61. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n1p46
Kao, Y. T. (2022). Effects of group dynamic assessment on L2 Chinese learners' literacy development: Learners' responsiveness to interactive mediation. Applied Linguistics Review, 13(5), 843-871. https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2019-0077
Kasper, G., & Rose, K. R. (2002) Pragmatic development in a second language. Language Learning, 52 (Suppl 1), 1-352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.2002.tb00022.x
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language development. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (2nd ed., pp. 207–226). Routledge.
Lin, M. F. (2014). An interlanguage pragmatic study on Chinese EFL learners' refusal: Perception and performance. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(3), 642-650. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.3.642-653
Mitchell, R., & Myles, F. (1998). Second language learning theories. Arnold. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203770658
Olson, C. L. (1976). On choosing a test statistic in multivariate analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 83(4), 579-586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.83.4.579
Poehner, M. E. (2009). Group dynamic assessment: Mediation for the L2 classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 43(3), 471-491. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00245.x
Qian, T., Sha, S., & Wu, S. (2024). Pragmatic transfer in second language acquisition in intercultural communication. Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences, 26, 117-123. https://doi.org/10.54097/0jqsns16
Qin, T., & Van Compernolle, R. A. (2021). Computerized dynamic assessment of implicature comprehension in L2 Chinese. Language Learning & Technology, 25(2), 55-74.
Rahmani, P., Ebadi, S., & Eslami, Z. R. (2025) The impact of mobile-mediated dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ pragmatic competence: The speech act of disagreement. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 38(3), 421-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2025.2472062
Ramazanpour, R., Amouzadeh, M., & Rezaei, H. (2025). A discourse-pragmatic study of in & ân (this & that) in daily Persian conversations. Language Related Research, 13(2), 587-621. https://doi.org/10.52547/LRR.13.2.19
Rezai, A. (2023). Cultivating interlanguage pragmatic comprehension through concurrent and cumulative group dynamic assessment: A mixed-methods study. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 8(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-022-00179-w
Sahragard, R., & Javanmardi, F. (2011). English speech act realization of “Refusals” among Iranian EFL learners. Cross-Cultural Communication, 7(2), 181-198. https://doi.org/10.3968/j.ccc.1923670020110702.021
Shakki, F., Naeini, J., Mazandarani, O., & Derakhshan, A. (2023). A meta-analysis on the instructed second language pragmatics for the speech acts of apology, request, and refusal in an Iranian EFL context. Language Related Research, 13(5), 461-510. https://doi.org/10.52547/LRR.13.6.15
Sharifian, F. (2005). The Persian cultural schema of shekasteh-nafsi: A study of compliment responses in Persian and Anglo-Australian speakers. Pragmatics & Cognition, 13(2), 337-361. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.13.2.05sha
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford University Press.
Taguchi, N. (2006). Analysis of appropriateness in a speech act of request in L2 English. Pragmatics, 16(4), 513-533. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.16.4.05tag
Taguchi, N. (2019). Introduction. In N. Taguchi (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (pp. 1–14). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-1
Tajeddin, Z., & Tayebipour, F. (2012). The effect of dynamic assessment on EFL learners’ acquisition of request and apology. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 4(2), 88-118. https://doi.org/10.22099/jtls.2012.499
Tanck, S. (2002). Speech act sets of refusal and complaint: A comparison of native and non-native English speakers' production. TESOL Working Papers, 4(2), 1-22.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-112. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.2.91
Ton-Nu, A. (2025). Why is L2 pragmatics still a neglected area in EFL teaching? Uncovered stories from Vietnamese EFL teachers. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 63(3), 1915-1939. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-2023-0172
Van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783091409
Van Compernolle, R. A. (2015). Interaction and second language development: A Vygotskian perspective. John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.44
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9vz4
Wilson, D., & Kolaiti, P. (2017). Lexical pragmatics and implicit communication. In Piotr Cap and Marta Dynel (Eds.), Implicitness: From lexis to discourse (pp. 147-176). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.276.07wil
Wong, J., & Waring, H. Z. (2010). Conversation analysis and second language pedagogy: A guide for ESL/EFL teachers. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429488023
Zangoei, A., Zareian, G., Adel, S. M. R., & Amirian, S. M. R. (2019). The impact of computerized dynamic assessment on Iranian EFL learners' interlanguage pragmatic development. Journal of Modern Research in English Language Studies, 6(4), 165-139. https://doi.org/10.30479/jmrels.2019.11536.1433
Zhang, Y. (2022). The influence of combining computer-assisted language learning with instruction on Chinese college students’ L2 pragmatic ability. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45(2), 243-253. https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2022-0206 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 212 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 108 |
||